Orissa Court February 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhimsen Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT524
J.P. Mishra, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the process of selection for granting exclusive privilege in favour of Opp. Party Nos. 5 & 6 and have approached the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuing a Writ of mandamus with the direction to other Opp. Parties to select the petitioners as the sole qualified/eligible applicant for the privilege in respect of out-still shops of Gopalpur.2. The Government of Orissa in Excise Department as per its policy for the year 2005-06 decided to grant exclusive privilege in respect of out-still liquor shops of Gopalpur in the district of Ganjam-Gajapati along with other districts for the remaining period with effect from 1.8.2005 (Annexure-1) under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Accordingly, the erstwhile Revenue & Excise Deptt. Notification No. 634-Ex-66/89 EX dated 1 9.4.1990 published in Issue No. 514 of the Orissa Gazette on 20th April, 1990 was amended vide order No. 2920 dated ...
Dr. Susant Moharana and ors. Vs. Convener, P.G. (Medical) Selection Co ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-07-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT625
P.K. Mohanty, J.1. The petitioners in the present Writ Application challenge the action of opposite parties in not granting admission to P.G. Medical Course, 2005 on the ground of non-production of College Leaving Certificate. They have prayed for a direction to admit them to the P.G. Medical Course for which they have been selected in the Entrance Examination after fresh counselling. Prayer has also been made for quashing the counselling of candidates held on 18.4.2005 as illegal and arbitrary.2. The short fact of the petitioners' case bereft of unnecessary details is that petitioners No. 1 to 4 are in-service candidates and they had submitted their service certificates as per the call letter at the time of counselling but the opposite parties insisted that the petitioners have to produce College Leaving Certificate to get admission into P.G. Medical Course, 2005. According to the petitioners, non-production of the College Leaving Certificate at the time of counselling is per se not a...
Susanta Kumar Sarangi and Smt. Puspalata Pradhan Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT435
I.M. Quddusi, J.1. In both the Writ Petitions common questions of law relating to selection of Extra Departmental Branch Post Masters and interpretation of Rules in that regard being involved, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. According to the relevant Rules, selection for above appointment should be made on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in the Matriculation or equivalent examination.2. Earlier, in OJC No. 2476 of 1997 decided on 12.2.1998 a view was taken by this Court that in determining the percentage of marks in H.S.C. Examination of the candidate, the differential marks in the main examination and the compartmental examination on a particular subject/group of subjects should be added to the total marks obtained by a candidate in the main examination and after deducting the marks of those subjects in which he had appeared in compartmental, percentage should be worked out.3. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions appeared in ...
Sudhir Ku. Pattnaik Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Society and Four ors ...
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR353
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2002 challenging the notification dated 5.12.2002 relating to election of the President of the Service Co-operative Society, Gengutia and also challenging the election of the opposite party No. 5.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though he should have approached the Tribunal, because of absence of the Presiding Officer, he had filed this writ application in the year 2002, but subsequently in the year 2003 a petition has been filed for the self-same relief and has been registered as E.D. Case No. 31 of 2003 before the Tribunal. In view of the above, we cannot allow the petitioner to avail both the forums specifically when Co-operative Tribunal is now functioning. We, therefore, decline to pass any order in this writ application. The petitioner may pursue the application filed before the Tribunal. Since the tenure is going to expi...
Laxman Panda Vs. Republic of India
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2088; 2006(I)OLR417
Sujit Barman Roy, C.J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant Laxman Panda is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 63 of 1988 convicting the appellant under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentencing him on such conviction under Section 5(2) of the said Act to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months. The impugned judgment was passed in connection with T.R. Case No. 13 of 1980.2. None is available for the appellant. On previous occasion also none was available for the appellant.3. This appeal is pending in this Court since 1988. Meanwhile, 18 years have elapsed. After passage of such a long time, this case cannot be adjourned only on the ground that the learned Counsel for appellant is not available.4. I have heard Mr. Padhi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the C.B...
Sandeep Sarkar and Three ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: 101(2006)CLT345; 2006(I)OLR378
ORDERA.S. Naidu, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State.2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are accused in C.T. Case No. 1920/2005 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. They are facing trial for commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner No. 3.3. Similarly, on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the mother of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 C.T. Case No. 1921 of 2005 has been registered in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambalpur against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 commission of offence under Sections 448, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the case and counter case are pending for adjudication before the same Court. It is submitted that in the mean time the parties have compromised their disputes and as the offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in C.T. Case No. 1921/2005 are compoundable, a pet...
Sanjay Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC229; 2006(I)OLR503
N. Prusty, J.1. This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order/judgment dated 8.12.2004 passed in the Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2004, confirming order dated 30.4.2004 of the learned Trial Court in I.C.C. case No. 304 of 1999 with regard to conviction and sentence as well as payment of compensation, with modification of setting aside the imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Misc. Case No. 1151 of 2005 has been filed for modification of the order-dated 15.9.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 171 of 2005.3. Heard Mr. M.B. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Jena, learned Counsel for the opposite parties.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 50,000/- by way of bank draft in this Court out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as has been directed by order dated 15.9.2005 in Misc. Case No. 171 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for stay realization of the amount awarded as compensation. As it appears in...
Pranabandhu Panda and ors. Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: II(2006)DMC248; 2006(I)OLR333
R.N. Biswal, J.1. This Criminal Misc. Case arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioners have sought for quashing the proceeding in G.R, Case No. 998 of 2000 pending before S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. Petitioner No. 3 is the husband of Opp.Party No. 2 while petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is her sister-in-law. Petitioner No. 3 married Opp.party No. 2 on 8.5.1997 in accordance with Hindu Rites and their Caste Custom at Sambalpur. After solemnization of marriage, Opp.party No. 2 lived in the official quarters of petitioner No. 1 at Bilaspur (Madhya Pradesh). It is alleged that the petitioners harassed Opp.party No. 2 in many a ways for non-fulfilment of their demand of a Car towards dowry. For some time Opp.Party No. 2 lived with petitioner No. 3 in Indore where the later was serving as Income Tax Inspector. During her stay there, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 also tortured her for non-fulfilment of their demand of a Car. In the me...
Kumar Jena Vs. State of Orissa
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(I)OLR416
S.B. Roy, C.J.1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant-Kumar Jena is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.1996 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 19/100 of 1991 convicting the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence on record. It appears that there are in all 14 prosecution witnesses. Out of the said 14 P.Ws., P.W.1- Satyapriya Jena, P.W.3-Halu Mohanty, P.W.4-Krushna Chandra Jena, P.W.5-Kalu Dalei, P.W.6-Rabi Parida and P.W.8-Krushna Chandra @ Titua Naik are alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.11-Dr. Kiran Kumar Misra held post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. From the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that the appellant gave a solitary blow on the head of the deceased, with a lathi. This is the sum and substance of the prosecution evidence as gathered from the testimony of the eye-witnesses. We have g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›